9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra(Addl.CIT) ORDER Per Shri Kul Bharat, JM. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (A), Rawatbhata Road, Kota dated 14.03.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That penalty order passed by Ld. AO in levying of penalty may please be declared as illegal and unjustified and without bringing any cogent material on record. 2. That levying of penalty on share trading transaction which were already been shown in trading and P L Account, Balance Sheet in return of Income and segregating same from total turnover and treating same as speculative transaction is merely change of opinion as no new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty on the addition, sustained by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ground nos. 1 to 4 of the Assessee s appeal are levy of penalty and confirming the same. 3.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below were not justified in giving the levy penalty and confirming the same. He contended that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and concealed income. He submitted that penalty is levied in respect of the loss incurred in trading of shares treated as speculation loss on the basis that delivery of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 73 of the Act and consequently not entitled for set off against other income of non-speculative nature. The question that requires our consideration and decision is whether the disallowance of assessee's claim for set off of share trading loss against other income by treating the same as speculation loss as per Explanation to section 73 of the Act will attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). In this regard, we find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the various judicial pronouncements cited by the learned counsel for the assessee including those which have been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order while cancelling the penalty imposed by the assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to show that in furnishing its return of income, the assessee had either concealed its income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly in the case of Bhartesh Jain (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that mere treatment of business loss as speculation loss would not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). 16. As far as the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Classic Credit Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned DR is concerned, the facts of the aforesaid decision were totally different. In that case certain item of expenditure were disallowed by the assessing officer on the allegation that the expenditure was not substantial by any evidence and that the claim was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
